"I think you are seeing what you want to see"
You can think whatever you want. I saw Jennings acting thoroughly confused and argumentative with Guliani, and I saw Blitzer consistantly try to rationalize how Kerry could overcome a 125,000 vote deficit when it was impossible, and two other networks called it. Along with any clear thinking person that listened to the circumstances. If you didn't see any bias then you didn't watch, or did not want to see it. Plain as day.
"because of the brouhaha in 2000 --- they would be EXTRA CONSERVATIVE IN THEIR PREDICTIONS THIS YEAR"
duh. Doesn't explain the behavior of Jennings or Blitzer. Hack Mathews was biased too, but he is a commentator, not a news guy. Still looked like a dumb fool, but that is standard for him.
"Consider these facts:
Ohio provisional ballots (yet uncounted) --- 155,337
Ohio margin --- 136,221"
I will. And for you to post this I will have to state that you are not NEARLY as smart as I thought you were. And I did not think you were super smart to begin with.
155,000 provisional ballots with 23% being the highest amount that were valid (10% to 23% is the range) in Ohio. Let's say they more than doubled the historical rate (HIGHLY UNLIKELY) and that leaves 70,000 (notice the rounding gift). Then let's say that ALL OF THEM WENT FOR KERRY.
85,000 short.
And now compare this to all other states that WERE CALLED, and tell me how it is not biased. Particularly when the dems had harped about Ohio endlessly. Underrstand?
So are you biased too, or dumb? |
